The only slight glitch is that Lever’s manager has a link to Collingwood, I believe.

I’m wondering how much of that is “manufactured” to gain leverage? There’s some serious butthurt flowing from the Crows though, they’re gonna try and push him any which way they can to get a better deal than 10 and 27.

As mentioned above the system is wrong. We have restricted and unrestricted free agency but this idea where players just quit mid contracts and expect to get to their club or in Lever’s case one club or the draft is wrong. It ostensibly means all players are free agents. Too much player power - I know its been mentioned in some of the trading threads but its gone too far. Now you might have the ridiculous situation with Stringer where the club has thrown him under a bus and wants a top 10 pick. So much BS in this system. Players should have to nominate a couple of clubs so that the best deal can get done. Art least Carlisle did this too ensure we got pick 5 - well done to the Saints for working around that to get more value but if Carlisle didn’t say he would be prepared to go to Hawthorn who know what would have happened. And like every other year nothing is going to happen in the first week of trade week because everyone is waiting for dominoes to fall. Lever should get done day 1 it won’t and therefore Gibbs maya or may not get done.

SplitRound I know he is uncontracted but has been in the system for 3 years, I understand why the Crows are peeved off. Can you imagine after 3 years Zach said I am leaving after we developed him and said only one club or I am in the draft. Having said that I think the Dees’ offer is fair but the system simply gives too much power to the players. I like the salary rule mentioned above.